Texas attorney Newton Boris Schwartz, Sr. has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Houston claiming that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president of the United States because he was born in Canada. The case is 4:16-cv-00106.
Schwartz appears to be an experienced attorney, appearing on the US District Court for the Southern District case search list over 170 times, yet he sues Cruz as an individual, or alternately as a representative of the class of all voters. Such approaches have met with universal failure for lack of standing in Obama eligibility cases, and one wonders why a real attorney would bother.
Here is the complaint with attachments.
I only see one page of the complaint. Interestingly the first exhibit is a long article from NBC’s blog with the letter from Tribe and Olson that was the basis for Senate Resolution 511 in 2008.
Schwartz has a long and checkered and not particularly enviable record, and has been banned from practice twice I believe. Not an auspicious beginning or credentials I would say.
With [Standing] requirements the suit is doomed, however the venerable Liberal Judiciary Obama had protecting him, could turn on Cruz based on their own disdain for him Politically sending it to the U.S. Supreme Court quickly.
CRUZ’s IMPRESSIVE DEBATE SKILLS
Americans, everyone of us must ask why we do not agree that a Foreigner should rule in the Office of President even if they are smart and have experience in some form of Government?
The Office of POTUS is a Key to the Military and Economy of the entire USA. It’s is our most vulnerable Position and our highest Ranked.
Obama has in his Tenure of 7 Years signed for an additional near 10 Trillion in Debt. That’s 70K for every man, woman, and child. The debt due notice could yet cost more lives in America than ever in our History.
Still think it’s not an important question?
In the Debate Cruz like Obama minmized the importance of the Constitutional Qualification saying in affect we should move on to important questions and issues facing America.
Cruz out right lied about Mr. Trumps mother needing to be a natural born Citizen that would include 3 generations instead of 2 Generations.
[Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] includes the children born in the U.S to immigrants who become U.S. Citizens before the child’s birth. That’s 2nd Generation.
So Cruz exaggerated the Claims of Birthers to further isolate us and in doing so compromise our National Security and well being through the POTUS Office.
He is a skilled debater and most are unable to wrestle him down and pin him.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-charleston/2016/01/ted-cruz-goes-there-217816
“Texas attorney Newton Boris Schwartz, Sr.”
Oh, that’s sad. Not just because his parents gave him the name Newton Boris Schwartz, like he was the villain in a bad spy thriller, but because after growing up with that name, he apparently chose to inflict it on his SON as well.
Get ready to start writing a lot more, Doc. It appears there is another one for Rubio in Florida:
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2016/01/marco-rubio-has-a-florida-court-challenge-on-his-eligibility-to-be-president-3094540.html
I think virtually all Americans agree that a foreigner should not be president.
The question is, how does our legal system carve out that distinction? As you have seen over the years, the vast majority of our legal community agrees that Barack Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is eligible, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been born abroad to foreign parents, is not. Between those extremes are cases like that of Ted Cruz, on which reputable scholars have diverse opinions.
If you consider yourself capable of handling the legal issues involved, by all means share your thoughts with us. But what usually happens in discussions like these is that, when subtle and complex issues arise, you resort to sloganeering and hand-waving in a weak attempt to cover your lack of competence on legal matters.
Somehow my PDF file was mangled. I have repaired it and uploaded the new version.
According to news reports Schwartz is leaning towards voting for Bernie Sanders.
Schwartz addresses the “standing” problem:
“Mr. Toubin also is unsupported or unsupportable in his contention that no one, but
the candidates themselves have standing to challenge Senator Cruz’s candidacy. Every eligible registered voter has such standing.”
Well! That settles that!
The 85 years old Schwartz was pretty cavalier in the Bloomberg article.
It’s so simple, I don’t know why it hasn’t been done before… (Paraphrasing)
The judiciary neither is particularly liberal nor was it “protecting” President Obama; the courts merely applied the law. And if Judy knew anything about the law, he should know by now that it was conservatives who narrowed the definition of standing.
Judy doesn’t even understand his own imaginary “rule”: there’s no evidence that Trump’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of Trump’s birth.
Schwartz can’t even figure out the correct date for the general election. It’s November 8, 2016. Several times he refers to the November 1, 2016 general election.
Your argument is idiotic. President Obama has REDUCED the DEFICIT by three quarters. In other words, it is now 25% of the deficit he was left by President Bush. It is a factual statement that President Obama has cut the federal budget more than any President in our history. Your statistics (as in “lies, dammed lies and statistics”) show a rudimentary and juvenile understanding of the economics of our national debt—something that is detrimental to our political dialogue and would be inconceivably dangerous in a president. Yet another reason (as if we needed one) that you are unfit to be dogcatcher, let alone POTUS.
Nancy – the Before It’s News link doesn’t have any link to proof of this court challenge against Rubio. Where is that proof? Before It’s News is a conspiracy site and not known for it’s veracity with the truth.
It’s Voetz’s suit — he sued Cruz and Rubio.
Which means it will probably have no standing and go nowhere? I want to see the Supreme Court address one of these lawsuits and finally come up with a definition of Natural Born Citizen so we can all get on the same page.
When is Cruz required to respond? That’s what i want to see – his defense. Does he only focus on standing and barely mention NBC?
Rubio’s motion to dismiss extensively argues Voeltz’s lack of standing. (And, also, that Rubio is a natural-born citizen because he was born in the United States.)
I assume Cruz will focus mostly on standing, as that is the dispositive issue.
There you go again, Slarti, using facts and reason.
That’s completely unfair. The truth isn’t about facts, about reason, about law, about reality. It’s about what idiots believe in their foolish fantasy worlds.
But apply a simple rule: if Judy has written something, then it’s either foolish or it’s a lie or – most commonly – it’s a foolish lie!
So when Judy says the judiciary is liberal, the reality must be that the judiciary is conservative, probably highly conservative.
When Judy says President Obama has increased the deficit, the reality must be that President Obama has reduced the deficit, probably by a large amount.
Judy is almost Orlyesque in his inability to say anything that is either intelligent or correct … and the probability of his saying something that is both intelligent and correct is closer to zero than nothing minus nothing. It’s even less probable than your hero, Mario Apuzzo, writing a short comment in which he admits his error.
Page 15 of the exhibits is some of the best work I’ve seen in a birther filing.
Since Donald Trump would probably have standing, I wonder why he doesn’t file a suit himself.
But I guess he benefits more from keeping the controversy alive rather than resolving it.
Drumpf doesn’t bring suit himself probably because he believes there’s a good chance he’ll lose. This way, stirring concern, suits Drumpf just fine. And he doesn’t have to hire a lawyer to do so.
I would like to see Congress address the issue. According to Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution, it is their job to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
Congress could address it with or without a case in mind, and they could do so at any time.
It would give me something to write about, but from what I read it is NOT going to happen. There won’t be any repeat of S. Res. 511 on McCain.
What’s weird is that the URL is our venerable commenter NBC’s blog NBC was a strong proponent of the idea that natural born citizens must be born in the county.
With NBC’s commentary included. And the ad for shoedazzle. Maybe he’s fishing for sponsorship.
Ted Cruz Inherits Obama’s Birthers
Ridiculed for their theories about Obama’s birth certificate, leading birthers now see their vindication in new questions about Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/natemcdermott/ted-cruz-inherits-obamas-birthers#.suZA9OjBgN
Ahhh it’s so nice when old friends return for a visit!
Cody Robert Judy must be upset that they didn’t ask for his opinion.
@Arthur B [If you consider yourself capable of handling the legal issues involved, by all means share your thoughts with us. ]
It is the Publicity that is so hard to handle at the same time. You guys will love this!
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688203671943774212
@Rickey [Cody Robert Judy must be upset that they didn’t ask for his opinion.]
Yes, the whole world now knows the arbitrary Denial of the Motion for Forma Pauperis and the #waronpoor plus they have my opinion.
You must have enjoyed how the Argument set out the Case for the destruction of The SCOTUS Court based on Cruz disabeling life tenure, gay marriage, and Obama’care?
You must be referring to the sidebar which says “Judy v. Obama – Strike Out.” You consider that to be good publicity?
@Rickey [Cody Robert Judy must be upset that they didn’t ask for his opinion.]
I have no idea what that word salad is supposed to mean. Do you want to try again, hopefully in plain English?
@Rickey [You must have enjoyed how the Argument set out the Case for the destruction of The SCOTUS Court based on Cruz disabeling life tenure, gay marriage, and Obama’care?
I have no idea what that word salad is supposed to mean. Do you want to try again, hopefully in plain English?]
Well.., if you read @Doc [ Here is the complaint with attachments.]
Then you’d know the part of his complaint that threatens the U.S. Supreme Court Justices and also their recent decisions.
I seemed to recall, and I can’t say as I remember who exactly, on this Blog mocking me a bit about my own Cert threatening the #SCOTUS Court with their own extinction if they did not handle this Eligibility Case Question.
Writ here:
“2015 U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Writ Certiorari ” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/262436958
Q-2 specifically elaborated
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688235012005572608
You can mock this Texans name,Newton Boris Schwartz, Sr but for 87 he’s seeing the same thing as I am in my question. It was interesting to notice he was a D pulling for Sanders., but as a D the concerns of the ability for an ineligible conservative to root out SCOTUS and their decisions EXIST.
He elaborated in his complaint the threat Cruz poses as an ineligible Presidential Candidate to the SCOTUS Court Justices in their Seats of Life Tenure being yanked by the Presidential Administration of Ted Cruz in an effort to destabilize their recent rulings of ObamaCare and Same-sex Marriage, Pro-Choice, even the Union.
Pg 26
[Senator Cruz has the unfettered right to do campaign on the promise to: appoint Justices that will be committed to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) and same sex marriage (2015). Prof. Tribe found that troubling as do many]
Pg 12-13
[ It is relevant or may become very relevant in Texas Governor Abbott’s call for a Constitutional Convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and potentially revoke specific certain Supreme Court decisions, including Roe v. Wade, ante 1973, and same sex
marriages, ante 2015. Texas was a republic from 1836 until its admission to the union in 1845 with a right reserved to be divided into five separate and independent states. Texas Governor Greg Abbott called for a Constitutional Convention to (a) amend the U.S. Constitution and expand the Eleventh Amendment “states rights”; and (b) revoke the above Supreme Court decisions; and (c) to divide into five states. [ Senator Cruz proposal limiting prior lifetime terms of federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices], revoking Obamacare, the addition for five additional Texas States. This is an idea Senator Cruz, might consider if the voting goes to ballots in the Republican Convention] added emphasis mine.
This is what he is alluding to. Hey, you guys might think Obama is really cool and love all he does, but the same ineligibility on a Conservative Extremist like Cruz could wipe out what you hoped to save in much the same way Libs have enjoyed Obama.
It’s a tinder box. That’s what he’s saying and that’s what I’ve been trying to say. We both have said it. You don’t think it can happen in reverse with Ted Cruz but it CAN!
That’s why it so important [natural born Citizen] ie. [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents]
Of course.. Maybe I’m mistaken and you want that all to happen so your plans working out?
1- Pro-Choice Reversed
2-Same-Sex Marriage Reversed
3-Healthcare Reversed
4- SCOTUS life tenure dissolved
5-Union Dissolved
I don’t know? You all seemed to have been defending Cruz’s Eligibility pretty hard although some have backed off that defense a little.
Ah, you noticed that our our political leaning is not the basis for our opinion on eligibility, but rather an honest examination of the facts. It’s what separates us from birthers.
It’s True, that may be in Fact your Opinion on Eligibility.
However, given the desire of our Founders Soverignty Based Integrity [ natural born Citizen ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] you would have to admit is a much “Happier Barrier” from the arrest by Foreigners in our Counsels.
Two Generations Doc
And while you may argue an Originalist stand, I have to say our Founders would say ” Your out of your mind ”
Because they would see, what was in their history, the same as I do mine. You have perhaps some idea of mine as I’ve been given quite a bit of heat for it here on this Blog, but you really are not taking my Experience as any kind of a ‘Warning’ for yourself, and that’s the reason I am here, and the reason I have suffered what I have, and the reason I do care.
Much more than I am credited for here,
That is also why I would argue, that though perhaps I’m the worst speller here, I represent a very sound Balance and moderate stand in comparison to Cruz Hillary Sanders Trump and Rubio who I view as much more Extremist than myself.
It may be sad commentary that Experience teaches us lessons, but it does teach lessons.
The Regrets of my past I have had more cause for repentance and sorrow for are those that were mine in not caring.
These might be explained as I do in my book -[Taking A Stand – the Conservtive Independent Voice- ] by stating my Focus was naively centered on myself and my family.
It was regretfully a narrow mindedness of naivety.
What my Experience taught me was the concerns of a much bigger Tent, and that is emblem of my entry into the Political Arena fighting against what I myself had been.. Hoping that I could be a Warning to the People of where they were headed unless their focus was also changed.
My success was not dependant upon my wins. My success was as one Crying In the Wilderness. You guys articulate it I believe as “whining” ?
Washington Post Opinion: Cruz not eligible to be president.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/ar-CCrkXb
Mr. Judy,
You continue to show by your own lack of integrity that you can’t understand our integrity. None of us here believe in a definition of natural born citizenship because it makes President Obama eligible, we believe that President Obama is eligible because the law is clear that he is. Rafael Cruz is in a different situation, but again, our only concern is the law, which is ambiguous in this case.
You, on the other hand, keep implying that the only reason for our supporting President Obama’s eligibility (and denying Rafael’s) is political. It appears that you can’t conceive of people having honorable motives for their actions—most likely because you don’t have honorable motives for anything you do nor have you ever shown the slightest hint of integrity.
What a President Cruz may or may not want to do once in office has absolutely nothing – repeat, nothing – to do with whether he is Constitutionally eligible to be President. I would never vote for Cruz, but the fact that I don’t support him doesn’t mean that I am convinced that he is not eligible. And if I become convinced that he is eligible, it doesn’t mean that I support him.
And the questions about his eligibility have nothing to do with the fact that just one of his parents was a U.S. citizen. Not even Mr. Schwartz agrees with your “two citizen parent” theory. As he says in his Complaint regarding Obama’s eligibility, “It was his birth in Hawaii that was decisive.”
Perhaps you’d like to go over the Laws of his birth at the Time?
IF ITS LAW YOU SEEK Cruz and Obama- were not born under the window of Law between 1790 and 1795. If its Law you seek… and that seems a relevant [Fact]or] Here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2016/01/updated-congressional-research-service-report-on-presidential-eligibility/#comments
Let me argue in the #SCOTUS Court about the Laws or Facts [at the TIME of Birth].
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688411311407939584
Policy Manuel
http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter4.html
Bottom of the page where notes are. Look at number 1. Click on citizenship chart. The asterisks below it explain the laws that were in effect during time of both Cruz’s and Obama’s birth(s). (See TWITTER also pictured here)
1952-1978 Governing Law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
Derivative Citizenship”
Chart on gov website
McCarran Walter act was in effect during that time. Per that law, also known as Public law 414, Cruz was NOT a citizen at birth.
Section 320: Children born outside the United States of alien parent and citizen parent. Child does not receive US Citizenship unless alien parent naturalizes by time child turns 16.
There are over 400 sections to that act. That section remained in effect until 1978.
Ted’s Father, Rafael Cruz obtained Canadian citizenship in 1973 and ultimately became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005. Ted was 35 years old.
Obama’s father never naturalized
This is simply legal Proof Ted Cruz is not a [natural born Citizen] and his claim rest in Title 8 under naturalization if he has claim, as is stated in Judy v. Obama 14-9396.
Obama is not [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] either. So is not a [ natural born Citizen] as the Writ of Certiorari states.
This should show you many of our Naturalization Laws have to do with one or the other Parent but none have to do with [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents as natural born Citizen] definition.
Deductive Reasoning Skill
That information sent to every one of Ted Cruz contributors has the Value of 39 Million Dollars so far..
But none of these Candidates for President worth millions and billions care to inform them. Here I am filing forma Pauperis and ridiculed as valueless.
That is the Reason if I had to condense it in a nutshell that the Anti Establishment is exploding in the Political Arena.
But do Candidates like myself get any credit.. No. It’s funneled to the Rich Candidates who neither know the Law or Defend it ( take your pick), simply seeking to excuse themselves from it.
Woe is me. Lol 😂 Cheers Guys🍺
@Arther B you can read it
I’m reading “2015 U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Writ Certiorari ” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/262436958
You’ve got to be kidding.
You claim to have shown by deductive reasoning that Pres. Obama is not constitutionally eligible for the presidency?
Would you care to state clearly the premises that support that conclusion?
Trump is ineligible, being born in New York City, which is clearly not part of the US in any real sense (just ask Ted Cruz and those who cheered his attack on “New York values”). Not to mention his mother is Scottish and he is entitled to a UK passport upon the payment of a registration fee and the establishment of “good character” (OK, that could be a problem).
Uhhh, he could pardon Obama.
Judy gets excited that an exhibit in a soon-to-be-dismissed lawsuit contains the captions for years-old comments on a blog; comments that discuss Judy’s previous failings in court. Judy is that desperate for attention.
Judy’s fantasies are neither interesting nor engaging.
Schwartz’s suit is silly (and not the first, despite what Schwartz claims), and will soon be dismissed due to lack of standing.
As other has said, people here wouldn’t claim Cruz is ineligible just because they don’t like his politics.
Except Judy’s imaginary “rule” has no basis in U.S. law (or culture); Judy continues to lie when he claims otherwise.
If Judy sincerely believed that requiring the president (and vice president) to have two U.S.-citizen parents would be superior than the current requirements, his time would be better spent lobbying to amend the U.S. Constitution, and wasting his life here.
Judy conduced a séance with the Framers, and didn’t invite anyone else.
Yet Judy cares not about the thousands that he terrorized.
Judy has been a warning, but not in the manner he thinks.
On the contrary, Judy’s poor choices and the consequences that he suffered are a warning for others to not commit the crime that he did.
The only reason Judy is here is because it is the only place he receives attention. Judy prefers unrelenting harsh criticism of him, his beliefs, his lifestyle, and his choices over being ignored.
There is no “War on Poor” because the denial of Judy’s IFP application was routine and caused by his inability to follow simple directions, nothing more.
Unlike Judy, none of those people terrorized thousands (in the same of religion). Judy is about as extreme as one can get.
Also, all of them are highly intelligent, well educated, and vastly successful in life; Judy is none of those things.
Judy may think he is successful if he cries in the wilderness, but this blog is not the wilderness. Judy should his uninvited whinings to the actual wilderness, and not impede the otherwise intelligent conversation that others are trying to have.
Judy’s frivolous ramblings are not worthy of any court, let alone SCOTUS.
President Obama was born in Hawaii. Full stop. Judy’s imaginary two-citizen-parent “rule” has never been the law.
Judy’s ramblings show neither deduction, reasoning, nor skill.
Because Judy’s beliefs have no value.
Unsurprisingly, you don’t know what you are talking about. Section 320 only applied to children born abroad, of one alien parent and one U.S. citizen parent, who did not qualify for automatic citizenship at birth under Section 301(a)(7):
NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the
United States at birth:
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the
birth of such person, was physically present in the United States
or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less
than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age
of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service
in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent
may be included in computing the physical presence requirements
of this paragraph.
Section 320 is part of the Naturalization chapter of the law. It doesn’t apply to children born abroad who were automatically citizens at birth. Ted Cruz qualified for citizenship at birth because his mother was physically present in the United States for her entire life prior to moving to Canada in 1967,
Irrelevant, because Obama was born in the United States.
Obama isn’t required to have two citizen parents, or even one citizen parent, because he was born in the United States.
This should show you that you can’t cherry pick sections of statutes out of context and arrive at a correct conclusion.
Maybe one day you will develop it. You certainly don’t have it now.
You don’t get any credit because you don’t deserve any credit.
And you aren’t entitled to a dime of the money which is contributed to other candidates.
Rickey, i will disagree with you to a point, Judy gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, campaign contributions, which is NONE.
Fair enough!
I wonder if Judy has made an accounting of how he has spent his campaign contributions, meager though they are.
And he also received some contributions to pay for his SCOTUS filing fees, which he never paid. I wonder if he refunded that money to the people who were foolish enough to contribute.
That was rhetorical, right??? Although, maybe someone should get a copy of his filings with the FEC to see if he’s been following the rules there.
McDonald’s and Redbox. Seriously.
Grifters gotta grift.